Posts tagged cairo

Nation of Sons of Bitches

“Allah Yenawwar” or “May God light your path” says the smiling police officer to me as I work on a four-meter high mural together with Ammar Abo Bakr. The mural is an image of a protester being dragged by two Military Police officers and its based on a sketch that Ammar drew just last night, which is based on a photograph taken in Alexandria and posted online only yesterday afternoon.

People hanging around the near by parking lot bring us tea and coffee, and the guy running the public toilet close by tells us we can pee for free. At least six Central Security trucks are parked in close vicinity, but we work away without trouble. Nothing can seemingly go wrong today, I think to myself.

Five hours later, however, I am proved wrong. A crew from Japanese television shows up and starts filming. A little commotion starts around the crew and a debate about the Egyptian military leads to a debate about the mural-in-progress.

“This is wrong!” some people proclaim. Others ask “why don’t you draw something nice about the military?”

Ammar and I try to explain that we are merely drawing a factual scene, not even expressing a personal opinion. Someone proclaims “well maybe the military police is arresting a thug and protecting the country.”

Okay, I say. So if I’m drawing military police arresting a thug, you shouldn’t be offended. The mural should make you proud of military police, I argue.

“Well, it doesn’t say that he’s a thug in the drawing, does it?!” he notes.

Exactly, I respond, so you will see him as a thug if you think they’re doing the right thing. Someone else might think they’re arresting an innocent protestor. It’s up to the viewer to decide.

“No, I don’t like it! ERASE IT NOW!!” he commands us.

Why do you want to blind people from the truth, I ask? Let them see it, go home, and think about it.

“WE WANT TO STAY BLINDED,” he screams, “WE’RE A NATION OF SONS OF BITCHES, OKAY?”

Okay, I say. And we pick up our things and leave, as hordes of people rush to deface the incomplete mural.

ديجا فو: نقد لمحاولتي استرداد في الحدث الفني المصري المعاصر - عن محمد عبدالله

ترددت كثيراً قبل ان أقرر الجلوس للكتابة حول حالة مزاجية لمستها في الحدث الفني المعاصر الحالي في مصر.  حالة مزاجية تتميز بحداثة السن والإيجابية بل وربما إلى حد ما بعدائية.  وقد وجدتني طوال الأسبوعين الماضيين بصدد عدد من النقاشات حول طبيعة تلك الحالة وبالأخص فيما يتعلق بمحاولتين بعينهما وقعتا – لا مصادفة - في يناير/ كانون ثاني 2012.  أولى هاتين اللحظتين هي كايرو دوكيومنتا في دورته الثانية، وثانيتهما هي معرض شفت ديليت ثرتي (وأعتذر إذ لم يتكبد منظمو المعرضين على حد علمي أي مجهود لتعريب الاسمين).

أججت تلك النقاشات التحليل التالي إذ صارت وقوداً له.  ورغم ما قد يبدو للبعض تهميشاً لذلك الكم من الأعمال الفنية والفنانين الذي تشكلت منه كلا اللحظتان، فقد ارتأيت أن أتجنّب نقد أياً من تلك الأعمال.  ربما شفقة بذاتي، إذ لا قبل لي بأن أجد لي مدخلاً لتفكيك ذلك النسيج الفني المتشابك، عسى أن أتحرر يوماً من ذلك الذعر.  إلى أن يأتي ذلك اليوم فسأكتفي بأن أحاول في الصفحة التالية أو ما قارب إرساء سمة مشتركة لمستها فيما بين المشهدين.  كلا اللحظتان في رأيي فعلا استرداد فاشل، رؤيتا تمكين أجهضتا بينما تحاولان التهام أكثر مما يتسع فاهما، فلفظتاه كما هو.

المشهد الأول: كايرو دوكيومنتا

أدخن سيكارة في فضاء عرض مرتجل لأعمال قرابة 25 فناناً مصرياً شاباً داخل مبنى فندق الفينواز.  يشرح لنا أحد رؤوس تلك المبادرة آلية المشاركة والاختيار، وقد كانت كما يلي: في قلب المبادرة يقبع فريق من ستة فنانين (مجلس الأمناء) ويشاركون بالطبع بأعمالهم، يقوم كل من مجلس الستة بترشيح فنانين اثنين، ثم يقوم كل منهم بدوره بترشيح اثنين في منظومة تفرع متشعب.  ليس ثمة موضوع ولا نية قيمية ولا مناقشة ولا حتى محددات مساحية.  جل ما هنالك هو مجموعة الستة (هل ذكرت أنهم يطلقون عليها مجلس الأمناء؟) التي تقرر نهائياً من تقبل مشاركته ومن يرفض.

لا يخفى على المتابع للدورة الأولى من كايرو دوكيومنتا عبث تلك المنظومة لدى مقارنتها بالإعلان الذي أطلقته المبادرة قبل عام واحد لا أكثر (انظر مقال مي الوكيل الرائع حول الدورة الأولى). لقد كان جوهر الحدث عندها – بل واليوم كذلك على الرغم من المساعي المتعمدة لتجريد المعرض والأعمال من أي تسييس أو سياق -  هو عدائه للمؤسسة ولممارسات القيمين في محاولة لتصوّر ديناميات أخرى وسلطة أخرى ليست بالضرورة سلطة القيّم.  ما كان مقدر لها يوماً أن تكون تربة خصبة لمجموعة من أكثر عناصر جيلهم إبداعاً من أجل نمو ما قد يكون أحدث أنظمة صناعة القرار وتمكين الفرد، استكملت دورتها وتوصلت لاستنتاج أنه من العسير على قرابة 25 فرداً التوصل لقرار جماعي، ليس بشكل عملي أو في إطار زمني فعال على الأقل.  لابد لمجلس الستة أن يقرر عنهم، وعلى البقية أن تتبع القرار.

التلويح هنا كان بفعل استرداد الفرد لاستقلاله عن المؤسسة، وهي محاولة شديدة الإثارة حبسنا أنفاسنا في انتظار ما قد تسفر عنه من تجليات جديدة.  منيت المحاولة بالفشل، ولم يتم استرداد شيء.  لقد أنشأت مؤسسة بين الأفراد ولكنها مصمتة هذه المرة.  أكرر أن أنه قد جرى تجريد متعمد للأعمال من السياق، فصرنا نتساءل ازائها عما نفتقده فيها.  أود أن أزج برأيي هنا، إذ أعتقد أن ما كان ينقص التجربة هو الفضاء الحواري.  هل من المفترض أن نصدق أنه لدى منح الفنان مطلق الحرية لدى تقرير جميع الأمور ابتداء من ظروف العرض وانتهاء بالعلاقات الجمالية والمساحية بين الأعمال وبعضها البعض، فإن الفنان يقرر الخيار الاعتيادي بل التوفيقي؟ أشارت صديقة في حصافة إلى طرافة تعليق جميع الأعمال تقريباً على ارتفاع واحد، باستثنا عملين أو ثلاثة.

المشهد الثاني: شفت ديليت ثرتي

أقف في مركز سعد زغلول الثقافي أمام تجهيز فيديو من قناتين.  التجهيز غير مشغل.  ديجا فو؟

يختلف المذهب هنا جملة وتفصيلاً عن كايرو دوكيومنتا، فنحن هنا بصدد قيّمتين اثنتين لهما موضوع قيميَ جليّ أسفر عن عرض مسيّس واستجابي بل ارتكاسي إن شئنا القسوة.  عدد الفنانين أقل هنا الأمر الذي يلمح إلى مقاربة أكثر انتقائية بالمقارنة بالمنهج التشعبي.  لا يمنع ذلك تكرر حالة الاسترداد.

إننا هنا إزاء قيّمتين تحاولان العمل ضمن المنظومة الرسمية، فإن مركز سعد زغلول فضاء حكومي في نهاية الأمر.  تسهى القيمتيان في شجاعة إلى الدفع بالممارسات القيّمية في قلب أجهزة الدولة، وإلى تقديم أعمال نقدية وسياسية لجيل شاب من الفنانين تحت أنف الدولة وباستخدام مواردها، وإلى أن يجري كل ذلك بشكل جيد.  ثمة هنا تفوّق واضح في الاهتمام بظروف العرض والتجهيز، وعلى الرغم من ذلك فإنني بصدد الدفع بفشل محاولة الاسترداد تلك أيضاً.

إن إشكالية تعامل الدولة مع الفن متعددة الأوجه.  لا جدال حول أهمية السعي إلى استرداد الموارد، ولكن ما ينبغي استرداده ربما أكثر من الموارد لهو الموقف من الفن، إنه الاهتمام بالخطاب الفني أو الاستجابة له على أقل تقدير.  ليس ثمة استرداد طالما لا يزال عشرون موظفاً أو ما ينيف يلتهمون شطائر الفلافل في مكاتبهم الضيقة التي تفتح أبوابها على قاعات العرض.  يمكننا بالطبع التجادل حول مسألة “القيمة المقدسة” لفضاء العرض، ولكن لا مجال لذلك الجدل إلى أن نعترف به، إلى أن نفسح له مجالاً في العقلية العامة.  وبالمثل فقد حقّرت الدولة من قيمة النقاش العام لأسباب لا تخفى على أحد، وإنني لم أر أي استرداد في وضع برنامج نقاشي عام ثم إهمال ترويجه للجمهور – ربما لتسرب شك الدولة المضمن في قيمته إلى عقليات المنظمين - بل والفشل في تظيمه بشكل يحترم المتحدثين ويليق بهم.  وأخيراً فليس ثمة أي استرداد في تنظيم عرض يتناول محو ثلاثين عاماً من ذاكرة جيل دون تقديم فنانة واحدة وكأنما تقيّدنا – بلا وعي - القيم المترسبة لدولة سلطة الذكر.  إن التأثير على السرديات الرسمية ومنظومة قيّمها ومؤسساتها ودينمايات القوى فيها إنما يبدأ بتحدّي تلك المسائل وليس باعتناقها.

لقد تعلّمت منذ فترة وجيزة ألا أتساءل حول دوافع أي فنان، وإنني لست بصدد ذلك الآن بأي شكل.  إن ما يثير فضولي هو ممارسات الاسترداد التي باءت بالفشل ومحاولات التمكين المحبطة وفوق كل شيء التساؤلات والجدل الموازي لها وما ينشأ عنها من تغيير في الديناميات.

عن مدونة غاردن سيتي moabdallah.wordpress.com

Déjà Vu: A Critique of Two Attempts of Reclamation in the Egyptian Contemporary Art Sphere - by Mohammed Abdallah

I hesitated a great deal before sitting down and writing about a certain temperament I identified in the current Egyptian contemporary art sphere. It is a temperament that is young, proactive, and to some extent aggressive. I have in the past weeks been engaged in multiple conversation and debates about two particular attempts that took place in January 2012, the date is no coincidence. The first moment is the second edition of Cairo Documenta, the other is Shift Delete 30.

The conversations fueled the following reflection. At the risk of margenalising the multitude of artwork and artists involved in those two moments, I have decided not to critique the art. Perhaps out of shear pity for my own self as I have no clue where to begin unpacking that wealth of artistic production, a sentiment perhaps I may free myself of one day. For the moment I will try in the next page or so to establish a specific common feature I have identified between the two scenes. Both moments are, in my view, failed acts of reclamation, two frustrated visions of empowerment that bit more than they could chew, so they spat it back as it is.

Scene one: Cairo Documenta

I am smoking a cigarette inside the make-shift exhibition space of the 25 or so young Egyptian artists showing in the Viennoise building. One of the leading figures of that initiatives is explaining to me and to others the mechanism of participation and selection, and it goes like this: at the core there is a group of 6 artists (The Board) whose work is of course shown, each of the six nominates two other artists, each of whom in turn nominates two more in a branching scheme. There is no theme, there is no curatorial notion, there is no discussion, and there are no spatial restrictions. The only thing there is a group of six (did I mention they refer to themselves as The Board?) who ultimately decide who is in, and who is not.

Anyone who is familiar with the first Cairo Documenta is aware of the absurdity of this system when cross examined with their published manifesto no more than one year ago, which ‘proposed an alternative model for exhibition design, one that is free from the conditions and frameworks imposed by art institutions and practicing curators,’ as Mai Elwakil puts it in her brilliant review last year. The gesture then, and even now despite the deliberate apoliticisation and decontextualisation of the show and the works within, was supposedly anti-institutional, an attempt to imagine different dynamics, a new authority that is not curatorial. What started out as a fertile soil for a group of the most creative individuals in the country to try and develop what could have been the most novel system for decision making and individual empowerment completed its full orbit and came back to the conclusion that 25 or so people cannot decide for themselves, at least not in a practical and time effective way. A Board of six must make some decisions and the rest will have to comply.

The gesture here was an act of the individual reclaiming her agency from the institution, a most intriguing attempt that many of us held their breath in anticipation of some new revelations. The attempt fails, and nothing is reclaimed. An institution is created within the individuals, only this time it is an opaque one. Again the work was deliberately decontextualised, we are left with a lot of question marks hovering over our heads, we feel unsatisfied and somehow wondering what it is we feel is missing. I personally argue that it is the discursive space that is missing. Are we to believe that when artists are given absolute agency over deciding everything from the conditions of showing to the inherited spatial and aesthetic relationships between artworks, the artists would opt for not only the conventional but even the compromising? A friend so rightfully pointed out that it is most interesting that with the exception of one or two pieces all the artists installed their work roughly at the same height.

Scene two: Shift Delete 30

I am standing at Saad Zaghloul Cultural Center before a two channel video installation. The installation is switched off. Déjà vu anyone?

The ideology here is radically different than that of Cairo Documenta, there are two curators, a forceful curatorial theme, and the show is political and responsive, perhaps even reactionary if you wished to be cruel. The number of artists is smaller too, implying a more selective approach than the branching scheme. However there is reclamation here no less.

Here is two curators working within the official sphere, Saad Zaghloul Center is after all a governmental space. The curators’ courageous attempt is to bring curatorial practice within the official apparatus, to present the political and critical works of this young group of artists under the nose of the state, and with its resources, and to do it well. There is evidently far more superior attentiveness to the conditions of showing and installation here. However I would argue that this attempt at reclaiming the state’s venues is yet another failure.

The problem with the state’s interaction with art is multifaceted. Reclaiming resources is undoubtfully crucial, however what needs to be reclaimed even more is the attitude, the attentiveness to artistic discourses, or at least interacting with them. No reclamation is successful as long as the 20 so idle government workers are still having their falafel sandwiches in their crammed offices with open doors exposed to the exhibition space. We could surely question the “sacred value” of the exhibition space, but we can’t do that before we give owe to it, before we create a room for it in the public mindset. Similarly, the state has for a long time and for obvious reasons undermined the value of public discourse, I didn’t see any reclamation in putting together a potentially critical discursive programme and not only fail to publicise it, perhaps again unconsciously subscribing to an official disbelieve in its value, but even fail to organise it in a fashion that is respectful even to the speakers. There is no reclamation whatsoever in a show about cancelling 30 years of generation’s memory that doesn’t feature one single female artist, as if, even coincidently, bound by the inherited values of a patriarchal state. Affecting an official narrative, system of values, structure, power dynamics begins by challenging those very issues, not taking them on.

I have learned a while ago never to question an artist’s motives. By no means am I doing that here. What I am most curious about is failed acts of reclamation, frustrated attempts of empowerment, and above all the questions and debates adjacent to a those attempts and the shift of dynamics they evoke.

Originally published on Garden City moabdallah.wordpress.com

Preview: Hydrarchy – Transitional and Transformative Seas - by Hannah Mae Cooper

In October 1967, the Suez Canal’s Bitter Lake became home to fourteen international cargo ships, trapped in a legal grey zone caused by the Six-Day War. Officially un-allowed to contact the shore, the ships were stuck for eight years, the crews continued with operations as their contracts required them to do so.

The few available traces of this intriguing but little-known anecdote were researched by artist Uriel Orlow; one of the many amazing, but unseen stories of the sea explored by Hydrarchy.

Opening Friday, December 9^TH, 7:00PM at Contemporary Image Collective (CIC), this exhibition leaves land to explore the sea, the ship, and the offshore as “remarkable and contested cultural, political, legal and socio-economic territories”; intertwined with both historical and contemporary narratives of resistance. As conventional shipping and state military forces take full advantage of the sea, non-state actors such as pirates and ‘illegal’ migrants also make use of the sea’s flexible circumstances by achieving their goals through constantly changing tactics and opportunities.

Hydrarchy – Transitional and Transformative Seas is the second part of a two-phase project, which started with Hydrarchy - Power and Resistance at Sea 

that took place in London at Gasworks and the University of Central London in September 2010.

As a volunteer worker at CIC, I had the chance to talk more with Mia Jankowicz, CIC’s art director and as one arm of Hydrarchy’s curatorial team, she provided insight into the conceptualization of the exhibition and its overall relationship to both historical and present-day Egypt:

“Doing a show about the sea might seem like a strange and distant topic but myself and Anna Colin, the show’s co-curator, realized how little we factor in the sea when we discuss global politics. We think of history as something that happens on land, but when you look at the ways in which the sea is used by pirates, offshore financiers, smugglers and ‘irregular’ migrants - not to mention the enormous wealth of cultural material about the sea - you realize the sea provides a lot of amazing ‘loopholes’ for us to break the rules and consider the world differently.”

The sea is indeed a fascinating subject and in relationship to Egypt’s waters,

Jankowicz explains, “Egypt is not typically a maritime country, but its fate has been tied to ‘water’ factors. Look at Suez, which for thousands of years, people have wanted to develop and control as a shipping route, and in the 20th Century Suez has become an immensely symbolic site of military and nationalist pride. We became fascinated by issues like these where the use and control of water routes became not only historical events in themselves, but actually shape the world as we know it.”

Without giving too much away, the exhibition includes seven international artists or groups – some who talk very directly to matters involving Egypt including Uriel Orlow’s work on the Suez Canal and the research group, Take to the Sea, who looks into Egyptian migration across the Mediterranean. Others take a more symbolic approach such as Ayed Arafah’s piece about the idea of a sea in Ramallah, or Lawrence Weiner’s work using the language of navigation.

As Hydrarchy includes a symposium on January 6^th, the project offers the chance to explore its ideas in more depth, and more closely in the context of Egypt’s politics today. The keynote lecture is by postcolonial theorist Iain Chambers, who has long looked at Mediterranean cultural relations, through a process he calls ‘maritime criticism”; he will be in conversation with the Egypt-based research group Take To The Sea.

The exhibition will run from December 9^TH- January 21^st. Do not miss this! 

Adam & Greed: An analysis of current global uprisings in relation to economics, history, and mythology - by Ganzeer

Foreign Agendas & Popular Uprisings

The Egyptian military truly does believe there’s a foreign conspiracy at work.

As far as they are concerned, things haven’t much changed since before Mubarak’s step down. Omar Suleiman’s comments to Christiane Amanpour, that “other people are pushing” Egypt’s young masses to revolt still ring true to Egypt’s military men and those influenced by them. Omar Suleiman may be out of the media spotlight right now -partially due to people’s discomfort with his uncanny resemblance to Darth Vader- but its hard to believe a man whose involvement with military/intelligence, which stems back to the 1950’s, would end with Mubarak’s step-down. Especially with Suleiman viewed as “the most successful element of the [CIA’s] relationship with Egypt,” according to diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks. If the United States was willing to let Mubarak go, I doubt it would also be willing to let Suleiman or any of Egypt’s old military guard go. 

[Omar Suleiman as Darth Vader]

Before Mubarak’s step-down, popular media claimed “foreign elements” to be behind the “chaos” in Tahrir. Journalists’ cameras were confiscated. Al Jazeera’s office was raided. Protestors were regularly abducted by Egyptian military, subject to torture, and asked “who put you up to this?” Officials would appear on TV and stress that the only person who can keep the country together is Mubarak.

[Egyptian singer/songwriter Ramy Essam shows scars of torture by Egyptian Military.]

Today, protests are condemned by popular media, “foreign elements” are still blamed to be behind any “irregularities.” Al Jazeera’s office was raided again. Protestors are regularly arrested by Egyptian military and subject to torture. The only difference is that officials appear on TV and stress that the only thing that can keep the country together is “the army”, instead of Mubarak.

[Members of Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces on public television explaining that the military is the people’s last line of defense.] 

Ah, and there’s one more difference. The only sit-in not condemned by popular media and not dispersed by Egyptian military is the small “Islamist” sit-in right in front of the American embassy. Y’know… before the sit-in ever started, I sat there once, on the side walk, waiting on a friend of mine. Security there were quick to come and tell me to move along.

This leads me to believe that the strategy undertaken by the Egyptian military is two-fold:

1. Create enough of a sense of insecurity in the masses to drive them to entrust the military with everything.
2. Allow Western powers, namely America, to believe that an Islamist movement is on the rise, leading the West to entrust the Egyptian military with everything.

The former point is further emphasized by instigation of additional threats such as:

1. Nile river countries bent on limiting Egypt’s share of water.
2. Israel’s attack on Egyptian soldiers at the border.
3. The collapsing economy.
4. The internal security vaccum.

The result? Popular domestic and international support. The Egyptian military wins.

Funnily enough, it is the same strategy undertaken by the ruling power in every single country to see an uprising. Qaddaffi’s popular line “Mnn antom?!” (Who are you?) is now carved into the funny sides of our brains, and will likely be a popular internet meme for a long time to come, but it has not stopped other countries from taking the same stance. Syrian foreign minister Walid Mouallem issued a statement saying “There are groups carrying out acts of violence in Syria and who have killed a great number of martyrs. The West speaks of a peaceful revolution and does not admit these groups exist but arms them anyhow.” These views have even led to a number of pro-Assad demonstrations outside of Syria. Sultan Assour, a pro-Assad protestor outside the Turkish embassy in Amman, asserted that “there are foreign entities trying to destroy the Syrian regime because it has been successful,” as reported by the Jordan Times on October 10, 2011.

[Qaddafi’s “Mn Antom?” speech remixed by Youtube user Blackjack101.]

When protests erupted in the eastern Saudi Arabian town of Qatif in early October, dominated by chants that apparently condemned the Saudi court’s sentencing a woman to 10 lashes for breaking the country’s ban on female drivers, Saudi authorities didn’t act much differently. “You Coward, you coward, you who hit women,” chanted protestors, before being attacked by Saudi police, and resorting to physical measures, which led to 14 injuries, 11 of which were Saudi security forces according to reports. The Saudi Ministry of Interior issued a statement on October 5th claiming to have “thwarted an attempt by foreign elements to destabilize national security.”

In Jordan, authorities have managed to weaken the position of the country’s pro-reform uprising by suggesting that Palestinian interests are behind the movement, tapping into society’s collective memory/knowledge of 1970’s Black September. This has succeeded in subduing the inertia of Jordan’s pro-reform sentiments.

When Bahrain’s February uprising took place, not only did authorities, together with Bahraini media, heavily suggest the involvement of foreign elements, but the Bahraini government even claimed in a report to the UN in April 2011 that Lebanese political organization Hezbollah, considered a terrorist group by the US, was actively involved in organizing the unrest.

The sad truth is that these claims find resonance with portions of the population, leading to much societal conflict in regards to sentiments towards a regime, no matter how brutal or unjust it may be. The result is, instead of being in a situation of the people against the regime, it turns into a situation of some people against most people and the regime. The regime wins.

Now, if I have the common sense to see that the Tunisian uprising was not caused by foreign elements, or to see that the Libyan people’s rise against Qaddaffi only stemmed from a legitimate need to overthrow the idiot, or that Saudi Arabian protestors are merely agitated by a life of oppression, or that Syrian protestors have simply had enough of Assad’s reign of terror, why would I assume that the Egyptian revolution is any different?

I’m With Stupid

There’s a consensus among every Egyptian military man I’ve spoken to that this is an obvious Israeli ploy to weaken the Arab states. “Look at Libya”, I’ve been told “Military men have defected. Look at Yemen; Military men have defected! Look at Syria! Military men have defected! By weakening the armies of its neighboring Arab countries, Israel will have the upper hand, and the entire region will be up for grabs!”

Yes, I’ve actually been told that. The problem with that argument is that it assumes that Arab militaries have been a threat to Israel’s security, when in fact, Arab militaries have been the only thing ensuring Israel’s safety, and keeping millions of angry Arabs from marching there and ripping the Jewish state to shreds! Israel has enough problems dealing with Palestinians living in sub-horrible conditions. The last thing it needs is unleashing the wrath of millions from Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, and whoever else decides to hop on the bandwagon of vengeance. 

That’s the first reason why igniting-mass-uprisings-as-an-Israeli ploy is the stupidest explanation anyone can ever think of. The second reason would be that courage is obviously contagious, as has been demonstrated by the emergence of uprisings all around the world, including Israel itself. What may have started as a massive protest against Tel Aviv’s housing shortage and cost of living, eventually turned into a call for social justice. Israel is known for its racism against its own people; Druze, Bedouins, and Ethiopian Jews serving in Israel’s military force are systematically stationed at the front lines of heavy conflict zones, for example. Protests numbering in the hundreds of thousands giving Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu the ultimatum of making “real and serious recommendations” or “on October 29, just before the Knesset returns to session, we will take to the streets in full force” cannot at all be good for the Israeli government’s stability.

Not to mention the other 1500 cities that have seen mass protests on October 15th alone! Madrid, Barcelona, London, Berlin, Athens, Rome, New York City, Dallas, Toronto, Vancouver, Auckland, Mumbai, Tokyo, Seoul, Taiwan, and more! It’s happening everywhere!

So why is there so much conviction amongst Egyptian military men that this whole revolution thing is an Israeli plot? Well, It’s obviously a way for Egyptian military masterminds to discourage men in the ranks from defecting. 

So Arabs Want to Rip Israel apart?

Pretty much, yeah. But Israel has nothing to worry about anyway. Unless seriously provoked, there’s no way a dozen-million-Arab-march to Tel Aviv will ever happen, because people will be people, even Arab people. And what Arab people want, just like the people of Israel, is a secure life where true social justice roams.

It is, of course, believed by Israel and the United States of America, that once social justice is achieved in the Arab world and a better education system ensued, the result would be a smarter population with a better economic status, less domestic worries, and a higher capability of wiping Israel off the face of the planet!!

Now, before we jump to that conclusion one must sit down and think about where this Arab “hostility” towards Israel stems from. Aside from the obvious reason of Israel mainly being a military-driven occupying presence, and aside from the escalating addition of settlements on Palestinian land, and aside from Israel’s discrimination and regular injustices towards Palestenians, aside all of that,  Arab governments, even those that have healthy diplomatic relations with Israel, have for decades been cultivating the notion of Israel-as-the-enemy in the minds and hearts of Arab people.

Take Egypt for example; since Sadat’s peace treaty with Israel, regular trade and business has been established between both countries. Israel has exported $181 million worth of goods to Egypt between 1994 to 2000, with $58.1 million in year 2000 alone. Egypt’s exports to Israel, on the other hand, have totaled $1.6 billion during the same six years. Although Egypt’s revenue from trade with Israel surpasses Israel’s, the Egyptian government has been subject to heavy domestic criticism for the sale of natural gas to Israel at the significantly reduced price of $1-$3 per 1000 cubic feet, whereas the lowest value natural gas has ever reached elsewhere is actually $7 per 1000 cubic feet.

Israelis regularly travel to the Sinai peninsula for tourism, and Sinai bedouins regularly travel to Israel for trade and tourism. I, however, a Cairo resident would not be able to travel to Israel so easily, and heavy interrogation by Egyptian intelligence upon return would occur without question. Egyptians have grown up with the notion that Israel is ready to attack Egypt at any moment. They teach it to you at schools and they talk about it at the coffee shops. They show it in films, television series, and talk shows. 

My buddy Sherif did obligatory Egyptian military service for a whole year, half of which he was stationed in Aswan at an air-defense base near Egypt’s High Dam. When a high ranking officer doing check ups would pass by the base and see something that was not in order, he would scuffle the troops and typically shout “What’s wrong with you, soldier?! What if Israel decides to attack The Dam right now?”

[A recruitment poster published in American magazines throughout World War I, featuring Daughter of Zion, a representation symbolizing the Jewish people. The text reads “Your Old New Land must have you! Join the Jewish regiment.]

Now although I, during my 29 years of existence in this here world, have never got to experience any hostility from Israel first hand, but have in fact been subject to many injustices by my own government on a regular basis, my idea of the enemy is still emblematic in Israel’s Star-of-David. This is my government’s way of controlling its people. By cultivating the fear of an exterior enemy, people will let go of certain rights and liberties in exchange for a sense of security at home. This may also be said about Israel’s government.

Therefore, complete dismantlement of both the Egyptian and Israeli regimes may very well be the salvation of both people.

Show Me The Money

Such insecurity suits Israel just fine though, because it’s how it makes the big monies. Without insuring at least a sense of hostility from its neighboring countries, Israel would no longer be legible to receive the annual $3 billion military aid from the United States, 25% of which is actually spent on purchasing equipment from Israeli manufacturers! Of course, a condition to receive this aid is for Israel to “seek peace.” If, of course, peace is actually accomplished, there will be no unachieved peace to seek out, and no basis for Israel to claim hostility from its neighbors. No more aid.

Moreover, Israel’s acquiring of U.S. military technology is giving the Jewish state a chance at reverse engineering U.S. weapons, quickly becoming a top weapons innovator and manufacturer, ranking itself as the 10th largest exporter of arms in an industry estimated at over $1.5 trillion annually.

It isn’t in the Egyptian regime’s interest either to resolve the Israel/Palestine conflict, as that would mean a very possible end to US aid to Egypt as well, accounting for $2 billion annually, much of what probably goes into the pockets of corrupt Egyptian officials. As long as there’s unrest at the border, and Egypt is keen on facilitating “peace talks” between Israel and Palestine, then Egypt is legible to receive aid. Also, as the 11th largest cement producer in the world, Egypt regularly exports cement to Gaza after Israeli attacks to be utilized for rebuilding efforts. It has also been reported that 20,000 tons of Egyptian cement were sold to Palestinian Authorities and then resold to Israel at humungous profits for use in the construction of Israel’s apartheid separation barriers.

This signals that even the Palestinian Authority benefits from this bad situation. It’s known, for example, that the Palestinian Authority incurs serious “taxes” on the smuggling of goods through the Rafah Tunnels between Egypt and Gaza.

The same applies to Jordan, as it is the 4th largest recipient of U.S. Military aid, valued at around $209 million. Together with other aid packages, Jordan receives an annual sum of around $500 million. Add to that, one of Jordan’s main sources of income today is made via Qualifying Industrial Zones that were set up in 1998, allowing Jordan to export goods to the United States on the condition that some input material comes from Israel. Jordan has since signed a Free Trade Agreement with the States, but 75% of all articles entering the United States from Jordan are still produced in Qualifying Industrial Zones. Egypt, too, exports to the United States from the production of its Qualifying Industrial Zones.

This explains why the peace talks we’ve been witnessing for decades have been nothing more than exactly that: talks. Because anything beyond that would not be of interest to the politicians at hand, but the show… the show must go on. This means that Egyptian, Jordanian, Palestinian, Israeli, and above all, American politicians are directly responsible for the gruesome situation that Palestinian and Israeli people have to live in today - most especially the Palestinian people.

Ah, but why would the United States spend so much tax money on benefiting the politicians of Egypt, Jordan, Israel, and Palestine, you ask?

Well it just so happens that the Middle East accounts for 1/6 of the world’s arms imports, the bulk of that going to Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and the UAE. That is approximately $250 billion annually. A lucrative client to anyone in the arms business. And indeed, 50% of all U.S. arms exports go to the Middle East, which accounted for over 40 billion in 2010.

All U.S. aid in the Middle East is valued at $6 billion. If you add Afghanistan and Pakistan to the equation, the number would jump to no more than $16 billion. If you’re making 40 billion off the situation in the Middle East, then spending $16 billion isn’t such a bad investment, is it? Do the math. That’s a $24 billion profit, not even considering the profits made from oil and other goods.

Now, without the presence of an occupying nation right in the center of the Middle East: Israel, these rich Middle Eastern countries would not feel the need to stock on such an outrageous number of weapons, and the United States would lose the biggest contribution to its economy.

So basically, the world’s largest superpower has taken advantage of Zionist aspirations and the self interest of Arab dictators just to make some money. And millions of innocent lives are left to pay the sick price.

Capitalism Versus Democracy

The United States of America has somehow managed to create the illusion of a powerful link between the notion of democracy and the practice of capitalism. This can, in part, be credited to America’s successful dominance over mass media for the past few decades, as well as the sheer bleakness of what had seemed like the only possible alternative: communism.

It’s true that capitalism has offered much more freedom than its communist counterpart; in a capitalist society, one would be free to wear jeans, drive an air-conditioned car and buy a remote control robot for his/her kid. Albeit, work pretty damn hard to be able to afford those things, but still, the possibility exists. Under known communist structures, those things were in no way attainable, and no matter how hard you worked, your only option was to work for a government that provided an array of incredibly basic products for its people.

With these being the only options in sight, its no surprise that the majority of the world would seek to endorse capitalism. Upon closer inspection, however, it isn’t difficult to see that capitalism is in no way related to democracy. For democracy, whose origin is the greek word dēmokratía -which means “people power”- does not prevail under capitalism, which provides varying levels of power to different types of people, depending, for the most part, on financial income. Moreover, the adoption of capitalism by a number of hardcore dictatorships such as Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, and China is proof of capitalism’s false association with democracy.

Also, come to inspect how communism has come to be applied and understood, it totally contradicts its theoretical basis of “Everything for everyone,” or as Karl Marx would put it: “a classless, stateless system based on common ownership and free-access, superabundance and maximum freedom for individuals to develop capacities and talents.” 

The way things have actually went down, communism was a way for governments to give nothing to anyone, and keep everything to itself. This, in strong contradiction to true communism, should more accurately be referred to as Leninism.

Ironically enough, it seems that true communism and true democracy are, in fact, two sides of the same shiny gold coin.

Bob Dylan Said

In Martin Scorsese’s documentary on Bob Dylan, No Direction Home, there’s a scene where Dylan recalls being called a communist at times in the 60’s for singing about civil rights and walking around with a guitar. Dylan admits he “didn’t even know what a communist was.” The same can probably be said about most people today, but that won’t keep the masses from ending capitalism and seeking out social justice anyway.

And chances are, it’ll probably be called something else anyway. Moses may have called it Judaism when freeing Egypt’s large slave population of Israelites. Christianity, as Jesus Christ’s teachings are called, initially spread throughout the Roman Empire’s massive slave and under-privileged populations for its popular notions of equality and social justice. Muhammad of Mecca called it Islam when his proclamations that all people were equal before the eyes of God found resonance with Mecca’s youth, unprotected immigrants and slaves, as well as tribesman who had failed to attain first rank.

[A Roman slave, persuaded to convert to Christianity, distributes his master’s bread to the poor and needy. From Alejandro Amenábar’s film: Agora.]

The sheer success of what could arguably be the biggest “revolutions” in human history can probably be attributed to revelations that were beneficial to underprivileged majorities as opposed to the ruling minorities of any given time.

This means that the current Global Uprising in the making, soon-to-become Global Revolution, is deemed for success, for the world’s majority is definitely underprivileged, against a minority of politicians and capitalists who’ve had complete carte blanche in shaping the world of today. Alas, capitalism has failed humanity, and no number of reforms will alter that.

Take Me to Your Leader

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in Egypt has continuously criticized the Egyptian uprising for not producing a unified leader to speak on the people’s behalf. This has lead to a continuously increasing number of coalition and political party formations, many of which have rendezvoused with the Supreme Council to sign agreements in hopes of putting the revolution to rest.

Demonstrations, strikes, and other forms of protest carry on regardless, because today’s revolution, unlike revolutions of the past, is leaderless.

If Muhammad of Mecca had agreed to the proposition offered by the powerful merchants of the time to abandon his preaching in exchange for his admission into their inner circle and an advantageous tribal marriage, that would’ve been the end of the “Islamic revolution” right then and there.

This revolution -this Global Revolution- unlike those historically helmed by a single leader,  is the type of organic manifestation of a shepherdless proletarian revolution that Karl Marx predicted. Stating it would take place upon the development of productive forces that would lead to a superabundance of material wealth.

For such a development to happen, the Industrial Age needed to copulate with the Digital Age. Only the development of sophisticated programming softwares, together with hi-tech manufacturing facilities could produce highly automated production capabilities. Combine that with the Information Age, and you have global “enlightenment,” a mass population immune to propaganda, and a society that interacts on a stateless level.

This would mean that machines, Information Technology, and the World-Wide Web… the products of capitalism itself… are to be the very death of capitalism.

How gorgeously mythological.

On Mythology

What we are ultimately facing here today is the culmination of humanity’s struggle to find justice while confronting the temptation of greed. 

An astonishingly resonating quote by ancient Egyptian pharaoh, Akhenaton, reads “To be satisfied with a little, is the greatest wisdom; and he who increases his riches, increases his cares.”

A continuation of this struggle can be found in the stories and works of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. Aristotle. Plato. Buddha. Al-Farabi. William Morris. Ambrogio Lorenzetti. Thomas Moore. Robin Hood. Leonardo Da Vinci. Laozi. Zhuangzi. Proudhon. Enragés. William Godwin. Thomas Jefferson. Ahmed Orabi. Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Josiah Warren. Mikhael Bakunin. Karl Marx. Ernesto Guevara. Woody Guthrie. Bob Marley. Martin Luther King. Joey Skaggs. Noel Godin. Constant Nieuwenhuys. Angie Zelter. Charlie Todd. Vanya. John Jordan. Rage Against The Machine. Chuck Palahniuk. March Achbar. Adbusters Magazine. Michael Moore. Ahmad Fouad Nigm. Banksy. Naomi Klien. Tanya Stephens. Jeff Howe. And many, many more.

This revolution has been a long time coming.

Hello, World War III

We are bound to be subject to a lot more than just slurs and smear campaigns. For the guardians of capitalism will not let go without a hard, hard fight. Driven entirely by greed and fear, they will have no choice but to resort to violent measures against the revolting masses. And because fear is as contagious as courage, many will be swayed to protect capitalism and/or the old guard in the name of security and the well-being of humanity. Those guided by hope for human justice will press on.

The brutality of regimes against their own people will lead other governments to forcefully intervene. Other Powers with interests in these regimes will have to take harsh military measures. Massive alliances will be made -Allies and Axis style- and the many idle weapons of doom, produced by capitalism and sold throughout the world, will be put to their designated use.

The biggest war in human history will scorch the Earth and end in widespread destruction and despair. Super-boundless atomic radiation of epidemic proportions will throw the Earth’s ecosystems off balance. The limited human population remaining will be forced to scavenge the Earth for survival in a turbulent post-apocalyptic world. 

After millennia of recovery, the Earth will be reborn as the lush green paradise promised to humanity by our ancestors a long, long time ago.

———————————————————————————————————— 

References:

Watt, The Cambridge History of Islam (1977), p. 36.

Israel-Egypt: A Review of Bilateral Ties - The Jewish Virtual Library:

F.A.Q. on U.S. Aid to Egypt: Where Does the Money Go - And Who Decides How It’s Spent? - ProPublica: 

James L. Williams (1998-10-02). “Graph of Natural Gas Futures Prices – NYMEX”. Wtrg.com. Retrieved 2011-02-06.

U.S. Military Aid and the Israel/Palestine Conflict - If Americans Knew

U.S. Arms Sales to Israel End Up In China, Iraq by Jonathan Reingold - CommonDreams.org:

World Military Spending by Anup Shah - Global Issues:

List of countries by cement production - Wikipedia:

The Chaos of the Corruption: Challenges for the improvement of the Palestinian society

 The Tunnels of Gaza by Sara Flounders: 

 UAE, Saudis, Egypt, Algeria top ME arms buyers - Jerusalem Post:

 America’s hottest export: Weapons - CNN Money

  Arms Industry - Wikipedia:

Outside In - by Ursula Lindsey

After nine years living in Egypt I would say that Egyptians have no problem with actual foreigners, but huge ones with imaginary ones. 

During the 18 days of the revolution, the demonstrators were foreign agents and foreign infiltrators. State TV ran interviews with hopped-up teenagers swearing they heard people in Tahrir speaking Arabic “but their accent was not Egyptian!!” 

[illustration by Ganzeer]

“We get your message,” the presenter would say, nodding gravely. My zabbal* told me matter-of-factly: “Those boys and girls are all trained by Israelis. Everybody says so.” Meanwhile, almost every foreign journalist I know was beaten or barely escaped a beating, by a real or a stage-managed mob. Mubarak said he wouldn’t step down because of “foreign dictates.” 

But also, late one night, leaving Tahrir Square with my husband, we heard someone running up behind us, and as we turned somewhat nervously, a young man we didn’t know caught up with us. “You must be the ones with the foreign agenda!” he laughed. Omar Suleiman** had just gone on in an interview about the “foreign agendas” behind the protests, and some demonstrators had brought actually agendas to shake mockingly in his face. 

[Omar Suleiman in an interview saying its the Islamic current that has pushed the young to revolt, that El Baradei does not count as opposition, that Egyptians are not ready for democracy, and any ideas they have about it are not their own and comes from abroad.]

Every single Arab regime in crisis has done the same: called its people traitors, trying to make them outcasts. It’s first and foremost a declaration of contempt: Only foreign minds could conceive of such bold change. 

It was to be expected, but I have to admit, I’m surprised by how this charge has persisted past its expiration date, the foreigner/activist/journalist/spy/agent/saboetur/thug/protester category continuing to morph and expand and confuse, cast its emotionally charged, intellectually sloppy shadow over every conflict. Sectarian clashes, street fights, terrorist attacks, general instability — it is all the work of unspecified outsiders.

Generals who receive a $1.3 billion allowance from the US are launching a special investigation into foreign funding to local human rights NGOs. One of Mubarak’s lawyers, Yousri Abdel Razeq, says it was foreigners — Iranians and members of Hamas —who shot the demonstrators.

 Of course this is all shameless bait-and-switch. While the SCAF drones on about “foreign hands,” the same gallery of grotesques still colonizes the airwaves with their choked-up, amnesiac hysterics. Patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel, etc. I’m looking at you, Amr Adeeb***. 

But if this manipulation works, that must be because it speaks of and to something that is actually there — a wounded dignity, a persistent fear, a fantasy of closing ranks. (Islamists have it particularly bad, condemning the total corruption of Western society and in the same breath earnestly demanding that that very West recognize the superiority of Islam). 

In recent months, some Al Azhar students I contact on Facebook — where they have set up a public group demanding reforms — accuse me of “foreign interference” for asking for an interview. A lawyer who I want to go to court with says she is afraid people there will take me for a “spy.” 

I take it as a sign of both how assimilated I’ve become and how helpless I feel that I now fantasize regularly about appearing on Egyptian TV talk shows to demolish the bombastic fraudulent xenophobia of the moment. (I have long entertained similar fantasies about making guest appearances on Fox TV, to stump its screeching liars. The Egyptian version is a more intense fantasy, however, since in it I speak Arabic fluently). 

It’s not just foreigners but many Egyptians who — because of their haircuts, their fluent English or their political opinions — are dismissed as khawagas****. In the days I spent in Tahrir, more than once I stood by while Egyptians yelled at each other: “You’re not Egyptian! No, you‘re not Egyptian!” 

Today the country is continuing to play this dangerous game, banning Egyptians with a foreign grandparent from running for president; most likely not allowing Egyptians abroad to vote in the upcoming elections; smearing activists and youth groups for allegedly receiving foreign funding. Shrinking what it can mean to be Egyptian to the narrowest, stingiest definition. 

The Egyptian revolution — despite what both lobbyists in Washington and paranoids in State Security and demagogues on TV talk shows would have you believe — was 1% foreign interference (and that mostly in the form of Tunisian inspiration) and 99% Brave Angry Amazing Egyptian Crazy. 

So why this lack of confidence? The fact that Egypt has been the victim of real conspiracies and real attacks is no excuse. Of course foreign powers will meddle. But Egypt can write its own history. 

I’ve always felt it’s in poor taste to complain about my host country. I’ve written all this well knowing Egypt has bigger problems than my comfort level; well aware of my freedom to leave anytime, my expat privilege and my country’s shitty foreign policy in the region.

I’ve never had much patience for the sentimental, nostalgic literature of a Robert Solé, the laments for a lost cosmopolitan pre-1952 salon where the natives were little more than picturesque wallpaper. But I believe Egypt will be the richer for engaging with its foreign elements, with the full spectrum of what it has meant and means to be Egyptian.Look at Beer in the Snooker Club, that Egyptian masterpiece written in English, a grapple with the class-politics and the politics-politics and the plain humanity of a tragi-comic khawaga complex. 

As someone who has gained so much by living in Egypt, I can’t help but feel how much Egypt has to gain by living in the world. And how much to lose by knee-jerk nativism, by building national identity on the shaky foundations of being aggrieved and self-righteous and suspicious. 

During the revolution, when Egyptians asked what I thought of what was going on, I tended to modulate my support, out of a certain professional coyness, that pretense journalists affect of not taking sides. Now, I also hesitate to express my enthusiasm for fear of tainting its object— my foreigner’s solidarity not only impugned, but incriminating to others. 

But of course I supported and I support the Egyptian revolution. On the first morning of it all, with the NDP building still billowing smoke, we expats wandered around Tahrir like everyone else, dazed and elated, taking in a reality set electrifyingly askew. But in the following weeks, among the crowds, I moved at a certain clip — pausing inevitably attracted too much attention, too many questions, the first of which was always: “Where are you from?” Then, “Why are you here?”

Perhaps I was too cautious, too self-conscious. It is one of my great regrets, that I was unable to melt, to mingle, to just take it all unreservedly in. I accept it, though — this isn’t a battle or a time I would pretend to call my own. It’s an honor just to assist.  

*Garbage collector

**Mubarak’s cadaverous spy-master, appointed vice-president during the revolution

***TV presenter with a distinguished record of sycophancy and demagoguery. Egypt’s less hallucinatory but equally obnoxious Glenn Beck. 

****Colloquial term for foreigner (the Egyptian equivalent of “gringo”) 

—

First published on Arabist.net on August 29, 2001

Laila Soliman & Ruud Gielens’ “Lessons in Revolting”: Monumental Narratives Waiting to Cave - by Mohammed Abdallah

What: Performance

Where: Rawabet Theatre, Cairo, Egypt

When: August 19 - August 23, 2011

Where Else: Zurich Theater Spektakel (Aug 29-31), Rotterdam Schouwburg (Sep 15-18), ,Dusseldorf Forum Freies Theater (Oct 7-8), Amsterdam City Theatre (Oct 12), 

A projected video sequence of Aida ElKashef’s and Ruud Gielens’s archival footage opens the performance “Lessons in Revolting.”  To my knowledge, this is the first artistic application of the extensive material that Aida has collected throughout the three sit-ins (even at the darkest hours, it was impossible to catch sight of the activist filmmaker without a video cam glued to her hand.)  Initially the prolonged sequence, edited by Gielens, failed to capture my attention, while painfully extending what turned out to be a video calendar of the first 18 days, even with date captions.  The audience sat patiently watching an interpretative performance by the group, on a background of imagery already engraved in our recent visual memory.  It seemed that the informative approach was the only possibility for the video component of this performance.  Through 75 minutes, the videos sought to present narration, to tell a story, which didn’t need the ‘surplus’ of  the emotions invoked by acting.  This in a way is a purist gesture, leading one to conclude that narration was the essence of this work, not its instrument.  The video, thus, played its part.

[image from theaterspektakel.ch]

The very first minutes of the performance also establishes the iconic style of Karima Mansour’s choreography for the performance.  The movement was expressive and interpretative.  Upon watching the bodies of the activists, as they roll on the floor, jump in the air, and self-inflect pain with maximum use of the stage as in a theatrical movement workshop, the audience are left with no alternatives but to collectively wonder that this dance definitely means this or that (the Aly Sobhi torture dance, the forcefully-putting-the-revolution-to-sleep dance, and of course the exhaustive protesting finale.)  Here, again, narration reappears, as the choreography becomes an instrument to serve a seemingly more noble purpose, rather than being a self-sustained body of work.  It is that peculiar urge to justify art, articulated by Susan Sontag in her essay “Against Interpretation,” which transforms art into a mimesis of reality, in order to then interpret it, and thus creates this unfortunate segregation between content and form we are accustomed to when encountering art.  I shall revisit this point later.

Five extended monologues, carrying the testimonies, impressions, emotions, and reflections of their true narrators who also delivered them, and intersected by performative movement, constitute the spine of the performance.  The monologues were meant to be “a reaction” as co-director Laila Soliman tells a press interviewer, instead they were overburdened with the half-baked reflections and emotions of an open-ended revolutionary experience, all trying to pass through the eye of a creative needle, which requires a much greater deal of processing the source experience before attempting to re-release it in a work of art.  Unresolvedness, in its own right, is for me far more interesting a paradigm than indulging in fixed notions of monumentalization.   The possibilities it offers on the performance level are limitless.  Yet we are left to feel that this work was hardly concerned with that positioning.

This invites a curious question on timing; what is that pressing need which urges an artist to construct a work comprised of her personal experience in its pristine form, or to formalize it in a mechanical, formative fashion in order to “ formalize” the narrative, in other words to forge the content in a cast of form? The separation thus prevails, as form here can only exist to serve a narrative, interpretative content.

[image by Adham Bakry]

I would argue that the motive in this case is the individual desire of the activists to monumentalize the revolution, its thoughts, its sentiments, its moments, its victories and its losses.  An act of monumentalization that neither the masses, nor the interim state, nor the media has claimed. No architects or sculptors were commissioned to carry it out, as the Soviet habit went.  Monuments are in their own right narrative and interpretative.  From this angle, it is safe to perceive the work’s title in a new light.  The lessons are not those acquired by the activist performers throughout months of a revolutionary experience as Sulayman suggests at the same interview, but rather the sum of what the performers are lecturing and confronting us with, and the guilt we are subjected to throughout the performance.  This work is, equally, educational.

The instrumentalisation of art for educational and enlightenment purposes is by far the best applicable example for the project of content-form separation in the arts.  Art here is form, whereas education is content, and content must always come first, followed by the serving form.  The separation project could be well-intentioned, fueled by the artists and critics’ genuine desire to justify art’s value, going down the rabbit hole of interpretation which “means plucking a set of elements” from the wholesome work, and whose project is to “translate” a work of art rather than receiving it, Susan Sontag tells us.  At any rate, this project of separation, along with the interpretation approach, calls for a true critical view.

Music may well be the sole component in the performance that succeeds in overcoming the content-form schizophrenia, possibly due to it, music as a medium, being the last stronghold for creativity that requires no reconciliation between the two sides.  Maurice Luca skilfully manages to merge Mustafa Said’s immensely appropriated live performing (Said is an academic scholar, a professor, a published composer, and a skillful Oud player) with the soundscape of the documentary footage, and his own pre-composed works.  The resulting constructive complexity of the finale scene for example, in which the sound grows from ambiance to a space filling, dominant Shaabi music, is a sublime example of a piece of work one does not wonder before it about the statement of its creator, or the meanings of its elements.  The work’s energy, structure, and appropriation simply leave no room for an interpretative project.

I am disinterested, on a personal level, in self-glorifying indulgence, particularly in the art.  I am equally disinterested in, and maybe even irritated by, monuments.  History, together with human behavior specialists, psychologists and anthropologists, often observes with pity the wealth of poetry, songs, monuments, statues, films and literature produced directly at the wake of critical moments of history.   These practices are often locked in an indulging, romantic, and seldom critical, viewing of a nostalgic perception of these moments.  A view often carried out by the triumphant side while reconciling history according to ideologised narratives.  Monuments are an exportation of values, an attempt to immortalize a certain view of a moment while creating a false rhetoric.  Whatever shape they may take, they are by large totalitarian constructions awaiting to cave.  They stand no chance against the principles of change and the instantaneity of any given revolutionary project.  An artist, and by far a rebel, should surpass such problematic approaches.

—

First published on Garden City, Mohammed Abdallah’s blog, on August 22, 2011. Also available in Arabic at this link.